Finatruth,
Thank you again for your continued research in this area. It is a real value you having your attention here. I think your research on progesterone receptor is great and your commitment to neurosteroids is going to be important to the whole community.
The focal point of this thread is: PFS is rooted in high oxidative stress that causes a persistent halted methylation cycle. Your finding that progesterone is important in handling oxidative stress is yet another thing we can piling on the heap of the protection standpoint. But I do think the progesterone angle is a separate thread.
Remember, This thread is meant to be an inversion treatment guided verification of hypothesis. We have to show that a majority of people are in this state, then work with practitioners to find the best treatment plan.
From the classical Methylation Protocol: those who have done the protocol correctly as we know it and stuck with it have gotten the most honest, consistent and persistent gains Iāve seen on this board. And I think we understand why we are getting gains. The lack of total recoveries does not speak to a disproven hypothesis.
As Iāve posted: I have taken two methylation panels. My numbers have improved, but not into range.
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7178&p=70956&hilit=range#p70956
If I were able to get my lab values into normal range and I wasnāt on my way out, then Iād start to look at things differently.
So again, my philosophy in this thread is that treatment first doesnāt tell us anything specific.
For example: You are getting gains from alcohol consumption. Why is that? It could be progesterone related, but its more likely that youāre just jacking up your dopamine temporally. I think this is haphazard and youāre probably just causing more oxidative stress and at some point your just going to reduce your dopamine receptors.
Another example of treatment first creating a muddled understanding is the āsulforaphaneā protocol being carried out here:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7189&start=20#p71871
From what I can tell, the intent was to test an epigenetic modulator so someone did a trial of a product with āsulforaphaneā and reported improvement. People probably think this confirms that epigenetics are in play.
But it turns out, while sulforaphane may be a weak broad spectrum epigenetic modulator, it overwhelming is used to raise glutathione.
plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ⦠ne.0066407
Further, in the trial linked supporting this theory:
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0 ⦠ane&rank=3
They are explicitly looking at glutathione and Nrf2, both markers of oxidative stress.
So what does the outcome of the sulforaphane trial tell us? I donāt think it tells us anything. It would have been nice to see a Methylation Panel before an after the trial, which I suspect we would have seen no change in the methylation cycle metabolites, but improved glutathione.
Testing is the only way to determine the root cause. Treatments can be developed in response.